Foreign and Commonwealth Office

UK Membership of EU

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a decision under Article 9 of Protocol (No 15) to the EU Treaties would require approval (1) by an Act of Parliament, and (2) by a referendum.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Under the EU Act 2011, a decision by the UK under Protocol (No 15) leading to a decision by the Council under article 140 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would require an Act of Parliament and a referendum result in favour before a Minister of the Crown could support it.

UK Membership of EU

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Section A of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a new settlement for the UK within the EU imposes an obligation on the UK not to veto the new EU Treaty planned as part of the Five Presidents’ Report Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union, published in June 2015.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Any Treaty revisions to implement the proposals for reform in the Five Presidents’ Report would have to be concluded in accordance with the provisions in the Treaties, which require unanimous agreement by Member States. The agreement of and ratification by the UK and any new EU treaty or of any revision to the existing EU Treaties would be subject to the provisions of the European Union Act 2011.

UK Membership of EU

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether it would be consistent with the policy and objectives of the European Communities Act 1972 to notify the European Council of their intention to withdraw from the EU without prior approval by an Act of Parliament.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The European Communities Act 1972 does not require prior approval of actions by Act of Parliament. The European Union Act 2011 does define some circumstances where this is required, but these do not include a notification under article 50. As the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), said on 22 February, “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away."

EU Withdrawal

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether a member state can withdraw from the EU under (1) a Treaty agreed to under the ordinary revision procedure pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, or (2) under Article 54(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As the Government noted in its publication “The process for withdrawing from the European Union” (Command Paper 9216), the rules for exit are set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the only route available in the EU Treaties to withdraw from the EU.

Gender: Equality

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and of criticism by the Institute of Global and International Studies, and others, that there has been too much focus on addressing sexual violence rather than on gender equality and women's empowerment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The British Government is fully committed to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 in its entirety. The prevention of sexual violence in conflict is an important part of this. We will continue our work on this issue as part of a comprehensive programme of work. At last year’s High Level Review of UNSCR 1325, the Government announced a package of eight ambitious new commitments, which included increasing women’s meaningful participation in peace processes and wider peacebuilding efforts and ensuring that women’s rights are fully taken into account in our overseas counter-extremism work, in humanitarian emergencies, in our early warning and conflict analysis and in our military doctrine.There is still much that the international community needs to do to deliver the commitments enshrined in UNSCR 1325. Despite clear evidence of the links between women’s participation and the success and sustainability of a peace process, all too often women remain excluded. Women and girls continue to suffer disproportionate levels of violence in conflict situations. The international community must do more to address the full range of human rights abuses that women experience in conflict. The Government will continue to prioritise this work as part of our diplomatic, development and defence work.

EU Immigration

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress as regards refugees and migrants they are seeking from the planned France–UK, internal EU, EU–Turkey and UNHCR meetings; and whether they will report to Parliament on the results of those meetings.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Government has regular discussions with EU and non-EU partners on refugees and migration. The Government’s consistent focus is on securing a durable and comprehensive solution to the current migration crisis, which tackles the causes of migration as well as the consequences. The UK-France Summit Communiqué contains information on our bilateral cooperation in this area. The Government will report the details of all relevant meetings to Parliament as appropriate.

Israel: Third Sector

Lord Polak: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial assistance they provide to charities and NGOs in Israel.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We currently supply funding for projects delivered by twelve non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem); ten through the Conflict Stability and Security Fund and two through the Bilateral Programme Budget. The following ten Israeli NGOs deliver projects through the Conflict Stability and Security Fund: The Peres Centre for Peace; Injaz - Centre for Professional Arab Local Governance; Kids Creating Peace; Yesh Din; Gisha; Peace Now; Terrestrial Jerusalem; The International Peace and Cooperation Centre; Rabbis for Human Rights; and the Jerusalem Community Advocacy Network. We also fund projects delivered by the following NGOs through the Bilateral Programme Budget: Burj Al Luqluq Youth Centre and Silwan Youth Centre.

Israel: Save a Child's Heart

Lord Polak: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are aware of the work of Save a Child's Heart in Holon, Israel, and whether they have any plans to support Save a Child's Heart in Israel in particular by providing it with financial assistance.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Our Embassy in Tel Aviv is aware of the work of Save a Child’s Heart. They do not currently have plans to provide financial assistance to this charity but have provided funding in the past, and hosted an event for the charity at the Ambassador's Residence.

Northern Ireland Office

Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they propose to change the operation of, and access to, the services provided by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland.

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish papers relating to the review of the workings of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland.

Lord Dunlop: The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is currently considering a range of options for reforming his office. Any reforms will ensure that elections and electoral registration will continue to be delivered in the most effective way while placing his office on a sustainable financial footing. I understand work on some of the options for reform remains at an early stage. In addition to the currently available paper registration process we propose to introduce, by the end of 2016, an on-line registration service. This will improve the registration service offered to people in Northern Ireland. The consideration of possible structural changes to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland is a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer and it will be for him to consult with stakeholders once the options have been fully explored.

Bombings: Omagh

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish an inquiry into the Omagh bombing of 1998 and the handling of the investigation into that bombing by the security forces.

Lord Dunlop: The Government’s position, as announced in September 2013, remains that following careful consideration and consultation there should be no public inquiry. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concluded that a further inquiry or review would not deliver results going beyond what had already been uncovered by previous investigations and processes.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Iron and Steel: Dumping

Lord Scriven: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role they are playing in the EU to ensure that the dumping of cut-priced subsidised steel is brought to an end.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The government is strongly in favour of effective trade defences to tackle unfair trade practices. We voted in favour of anti-dumping measures on steel products in July and November. We also supported the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on reinforcing bar in January, an investigation for which we lobbied the European Commission successfully, and on cold-rolled flat steel products in February. We share the steel industry’s concerns about the level of duties imposed in both cases, and we are pressing the Commission to reconsider this. We also welcomed the opening of three new anti-dumping investigations in February. The government is also pushing the Commission for faster, more effective action to deal with dumping of steel. This was one of the conclusions of the Extraordinary Competitiveness Council on Steel in November, a meeting which my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was instrumental in convening. In advance of the European Commission’s energy-intensive industry stakeholder’s summit on 15 February – another key action from the Competitiveness Council - the government and several other EU Member States sent a joint letter to the Commission, pressing it to make full and timely use of all trade defence instruments to tackle unfair trade. My Rt Hon Friend the Minister of State for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise played an active role at this summit. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has also raised these issues in discussions with Trade Commissioner Malmström, most recently on 25 February. I reiterated the need for faster and more effective action on dumping at the Competitiveness Council held on 29th February and the Presidency conclusions of that Council reflected this message. The government is also supporting a robust discussion of the issue of overcapacity through the EU’s ongoing dialogue with the Chinese and other governments.

Global Navigation Satellite Systems

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessments they have carried out on the future of resilient position, navigation and timing systems and the vulnerability of the global navigation satellite system to intentional and unintentional jamming.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The Government recognises the strengths and limitations of global navigation satellite systems such as GPS and Galileo, and the importance of the position, navigation and timing services that they provide. The issue of the vulnerability of satellite based navigation systems has been addressed in the National Space Security Policy, which notes that the signals received from satellite navigation systems are inherently weak. The policy recognises that a proportionate approach is needed to ensure that space infrastructures are resilient to threats, including for instance the use of alternative or fall-back methods of providing the necessary services in the event of an interruption. Responsibility for determining alternative methods will rest largely with owners and operators of space services or with infrastructure owners and operators, with oversight provided by lead Government departments. UK industry has well recognised capability in developing systems that identify and mitigate intentional and unintentional interference to GNSS.

UK Trade with EU

Lord Hoyle: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the UK's main exports to the EU, including both goods and services.

Lord Maude of Horsham: This information is given in tables 1 and 2 below. The exports of services figures in Table 1 are sourced from the Office for National Statistics’ Pink Book 2015 release and are on a ‘Balance of Payments’ basis. Figures for exports of goods on the same basis are only available at a broad level of commodity aggregation (1 digit SITC level). Goods data at the level of detail required to answer this PQ are available from HM Revenue and Customs Overseas Trade Statistics database (Table 2) attached. These data are on a different (‘merchandise’) basis, hence not strictly comparable with the ONS data. Moreover, data for 2015 are not available for services.Table 1UK trade in services with the EU in 2014Source: ONS Pink Book 2015   Top 10 UK exports of services to the EU in 2014Type of serviceValue (£million)  Financial20,208Other business services18,329Travel12,075Transportation11,891Telecoms, computer and information7,517Intellectual property4,199Insurance and pension2,455Construction725Personal, Cultural and Recreational716Government524  Source: ONS Pink Book 2015 Note: Data for 2015 will be published by the ONS in July 2016



Top 10 uk exports to EU
(PDF Document, 261.22 KB)

Department for International Development

Developing Countries: Females

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether action on the promotion of women's rights and social justice has been made central to the Post-2015 Development Agenda, and of whether women, as key stakeholders, are able to promote and negotiate their own development goals.

Baroness Verma: The UK was a leading voice in the Global Goals for Sustainable Development negotiations and insisted that that that these goals must start by empowering girls and women, and tackling discrimination. A key priority was to ensure a strong and explicit commitment to gender equality through a standalone goal, and further gender mainstreaming throughout the framework. These were both successfully included in the final set of global goals.

Department for Education

UN Commission on the Status of Women

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their objectives for the Commission on the Status of Women meeting in March.

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: To ask Her Majesty’s Government who will attend the Commission on the Status of Women meeting in March on their behalf.

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their side events will be at the Commission on the Status of Women meeting in March.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: The Government will use the 60th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment remain at the top of the global political agenda. We will negotiate with other UN Member States to agree a set of ambitious, action-oriented and forward-looking recommendations for governments around the world to accelerate progress on gender equality and ensure accountability.At the first session after the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, we will press for a meaningful follow-up process that places gender equality at the heart of the new agenda while ensuring that the CSW remains the prime global forum on gender equality and the laboratory of ideas that it is today.Furthermore, we will enhance the UK’s reputation as a world leader in this area by promoting relevant national policies but also by exchanging ideas with other UN Member States. In line with the session’s themes this year, we will be focusing on women’s empowerment and on violence against women and girls in high level discussions, events and bilateral meetings.In addition, the Government will host and support a number of events to raise the profile of certain issues which still prevent us from achieving equality, such as inequality in the workplace, discrimination in all its forms and violence against women and girls.Lastly, but very importantly, we are working with civil society to ensure their participation remains an integral part of the CSW programme and their concerns are heard at the national and global levels.Sixty years after the first session of the Commission on the Status of Women, the UK Government will send a strong signal that gender equality must be at the heart of economic and social development of all countries. We will have a ministerial team of four, led by the Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP, Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, and including the Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, Secretary of State for International Development. Parliamentary Under Secretary for Women, Equalities and Family Justice Caroline Dinenage MP and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for International Development, Baroness Verma, in her capacity as Ministerial Champion for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Overseas, will also attend.The UK Government currently has two confirmed side events at this year’s Commission on the Status of Women. The first one will focus on getting more women and girls into science and technology and the second one will be on the gender pay gap.We will also be taking part in other events where major issues such as women’s economic empowerment and violence against women are discussed.

Cultural Heritage: Education

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to increase the budget of the Heritage Schools programme.

Lord Nash: The funding for Historic England’s Heritage Schools programme in 2016-17 has not yet been confirmed. A decision will be made once the Department’s business planning process has concluded.

Ministry of Justice

G4S

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many fines G4S has paid under any contract with the Ministry of Justice in each of the last five years; and why each of those fines were imposed.

Lord Faulks: The Ministry of Justice holds a large number of centrally and locally managed contracts with G4S and therefore information on the total financial remedies imposed could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. However, we do hold information on the total financial remedies imposed on G4S-run custodial establishments. Information relating to Young Offender’s Institutes (YOIs) and secure training centres (STC) were as follows: There have been two incidents in the last five years in which financial remedies were applied at Medway STC. In both cases, G4S failed to comply with operating procedures. In the same time period, there was one incident for which financial remedies were applied at Rainsbrook STC, for failing to comply with operating procedures. Financial remedies applied to private prisons, including HMP/YOI Parc since 2010 are set out in the following table.   2010/112011/122012/132013/142014/152015/16TOTAL  Financial RemediesFinancial RemediesFinancial RemediesFinancial RemediesFinancial RemediesFinancial RemediesFinancial RemediesAltcourse*Failure to comply with procedures2 243 11Incidents2 233 10Failure to comply with prison regime1  33 7Total  28BirminghamFailure to comply with procedures   42 6Incidents  0Failure to comply with prison regime  11  2Total  8OakwoodFailure to comply with procedures  11  2Incidents  0Failure to comply with prison regime  11  2Total  4HMP/YOI ParcFailure to comply with procedures  144211Incidents  1 416Failure to comply with prison regime112Total  19Rye Hill*Failure to comply with procedures44544223Incidents32 41 10Failure to comply with prison regime11 3  5Total  38  1371432256194 * Information for 2015/16 is not finalised for Altcourse and Rye Hill, but is included provisionally for consistency.

Prisons: Drugs

Lord Browne of Belmont: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken over the past five years to disrupt and intercept the supply of illicit drugs into UK prisons.

Lord Faulks: Prisons in England and Wales take a zero tolerance approach to illicit drugs. We have a comprehensive range of security measures and searching techniques in place to detect drugs, and to prevent smuggling into prisons. We are about to pilot the use of body scanners to reveal drugs concealed within the body, we have introduced specific dog training to allow dogs to detect new psychoactive substances (NPS) and will introduce widespread drug testing of prisoners for NPS as part of the national mandatory drug testing programme in April 2016. We have also made it illegal to smuggle NPS into prisons. We are working with the Department of Health and others to improve our understanding of the risks NPS present for offenders and to provide appropriate information, guidance and support to offenders and those working with them in prison. Anyone caught with any drugs in prison will be severely dealt with. Punishments available include closed visits, loss of privileges and up to 42 days added to their time in custody. Where prisoners are caught with controlled drugs, we will work with the police to consider prosecution and a further sentence.

Prisoners: Voting Rights

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc (Case C-650/13); and whether any changes to legislation or government policies are required as a result of that judgment.

Lord Faulks: The UK's ban on prisoner voting stays in place and as we have consistently stated, remains a matter for Parliament to determine.

Peers: Writs of Summons

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Faulks on 22 January (HL5044), which Members of the House were not sent writs of summons and why.

Lord Faulks: All members of the House were sent writs including a further seven writs sent by hand to Members disqualified for sitting and voting in the House.

Ministry of Defence

Burma: Army

Baroness Goudie: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 1 March (HL6250), whether they retain details of the names and battalions, or other units, of Burmese Army soldiers who receive training from the UK.

Earl Howe: We retain details of the names and current units of Burmese Army soldiers who receive training from the UK. However, we do not hold any information on which units these individuals may have served in previously.

Burma: Army

Baroness Goudie: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 1 March (HL6250), what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of training provided by the UK to Burmese Army soldiers.

Earl Howe: I refer to my previous answer, which stated that we do not provide combat training to the Burmese Army. We do, however, provide educational training to the Burmese military and Burmese civil servants. In 2015 this included the Managing Defence in a Wider Security Context and Strategic Leadership programmes, both delivered by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom in partnership with Cranfield University. In addition, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst delivered a Psychology of Leadership programme in Burma, and we have also provided English language training. We have not undertaken any formal assessment process of this educational training.I refer to my previous answer, which stated that we do not provide combat training to the Burmese Army. We do, however, provide educational training to the Burmese military and Burmese civil servants. In 2015 this included the Managing Defence in a Wider Security Context and Strategic Leadership programmes, both delivered by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom in partnership with Cranfield University. In addition, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst delivered a Psychology of Leadership programme in Burma, and we have also provided English language training. We have not undertaken any formal assessment process of this educational training.

Department for Work and Pensions

Social Security Benefits: Fraud

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total budget for the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in 2014–15; how many allegations of suspected benefit fraud were reported via that hotline or the online reporting form in 2014–15; what was the total cost of investigating those allegations; and how much was identified in recoverable overpayments by those investigations.

Lord Freud: The Fraud and Error Service (FES), part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is responsible for the prevention, detection and where appropriate, investigation of Fraud and Error against all benefits administered by and on behalf of DWP.   The National Benefit Fraud Hotline (NBFH) is outsourced; therefore there is a yearly cost for outsourcing as opposed to a budget. The total outsourcing cost the NBFH for 2014/15 is £303,480. This figure covers the 52 week period commencing 31 March 2014.   The available data on allegations of benefit fraud reported via the NBFD or online only covers incidents recorded on the internal FES Fraud Referral and Information Management System (FRAIMS.) It does not give the total volume of enquiries and calls made to NBFH, only those that were entered onto FRAIMS. There are various reasons for allegations not being entered onto FRAIMS, including the fact that not all enquiries and calls are of an appropriate nature. In 2014/15 there were 207,600 cases of suspected benefit fraud reported via the NBFH that were entered onto FRAIMS or reported online.   We are unable to provide a precise response on the cost of investigating these allegations because some of the investigations from the allegations made in 2014/15 are still on going. We are able to provide an estimate of the cost of investigations that achieved an outcome in 2014/15 which were initially triggered by an allegation made through the hotline or online reporting. We cannot distinguish the exact costs of investigating NBFH allegations from the total cost of investigating all allegations and so this figure is an estimate, calculated by apportioning total costs of Local Service that were undertaken in 2014/15 on the basis of Positive Outcomes as this is the main cost driver. This was estimated to be £16.9m. This figure only includes direct costs of Investigations – there are no overheads included.   As with the cost of investigation, we are unable to provide a precise response on the amount identified in recoverable overpayments because some of the investigations from the allegations made in 2014/15 are still ongoing. We have instead provided the value of overpayments that achieved an outcome in 2014/15 which were initially triggered by an allegation made through the hotline or online reporting. £46,068,848 was identified as recoverable. Note that identifying overpayments also prevents a significant amount of future losses which are not included in the value of recoverable overpayments identified shown here. Referrals from members of the public therefore provide good value for money.

Home Office

EU Countries: Nationality

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-135/08) that a decision by an EU member state to deprive a person of national citizenship cannot result automatically from the fact that the person in question acquired that status by deception, in particular in the light of Section A of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning issues raised by Denmark regarding the Treaty on European Union (Official Journal C348/1, 31/12/92).

Lord Bates: The European Court of Justice confirmed in the case of Rottmann that it was required to take into account the Edinburgh Decision of 1992 when interpreting the EU Treaties. On the facts of the case, the Court found that the decision to deprive the applicant of German nationality had to comply with the EU principle of proportionality. The Court considered that this conclusion was consistent with the Edinburgh Decision.In its application of this judgment, the UK Court of Appeal confirmed in the case of G1 that Member States retain competence over the acquisition and loss of citizenship and the principle in Rottmann only applies if EU law is engaged on the particular facts of each case.

Deportation: EEA Nationals

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many victims of trafficking or modern slavery who are EEA nationals and in receipt of a positive Conclusive Grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism have been issued with (1) "minded to remove" letters, or (2) administrative removal papers for not exercising their treaty rights, since 1 January 2014.

Lord Bates: The information requested is not collected centrally and could only be provided by investigation of individual case records.Where an EEA national has been issued with a positive conclusive grounds decision they will not be served with administrative removal papers. EEA nationals who have left the Government-funded service provided under the victim care contract who are not exercising treaty rights and are not entitled to remain on other grounds may be encouraged to return home voluntarily.

Human Trafficking: France

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the part played by people traffickers in the arrival in northern France of large numbers of refugees and migrants seeking access to the UK.

Lord Bates: We are deeply concerned by the migration crisis in Europe. We believe that organised criminal gangs are operating in and around the camps in Northern France and fuelling organised immigration crime. We are working closely with our French counterparts through the Joint Operational Command and Control Centre which includes intelligence sharing and developing the intelligence picture and we will continue to assess this crime type.In addition, the UK has provided specific financial assistance to fund a project aimed at protecting the most vulnerable people in the camps, agreed in the UK-France Declaration of August 2015. This project is setup to identify vulnerable people in the camps in Calais and is being delivered by a French non-Government organisation, France Terre D’Asile. It seeks to identify potential victims of trafficking and exploitation (including children), and direct them to existing protection, support and advice within France. The UK has contributed £530,000 (€750,000) towards the costs of this project.

Immigration: Europe

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make representations to the governments of other European countries that riot police should not normally be used to control refugees and migrants in Europe.

Lord Bates: Our consistent focus has been on encouraging a comprehensive solution to the current migratory situation in Europe. This includes strengthening the EU's external border and enhanced cooperation with Turkey and Western Balkans countries, as well as short and long term work with countries of transit and origin further upstream, and efforts to combat the people smugglers and traffickers who take advantage of the situation to put lives at risk.Public order is a matter for national governments and we expect all our international partners to ensure that migrants’ human rights are fully respected.We continue to work closely with our European partners to address all aspects of the current situation as it continues to develop. For those in genuine need, we are clear that protection in the region of origin is often the best solution and that those reaching the EU should claim asylum in the first Member State they enter (as per EU rules) rather than seeking to travel further across Europe to their destination of choice.

Asylum: EU Law

Baroness Jowell: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been deported by the UK to each EU country under the terms of Dublin III per year since that Regulation came into force.

Lord Bates: The Dublin III Regulation came into force on 1 January 2014. The table below indicates the number of removals per EU country in that time.Dublin Convention III returns to EU countries (2010 to 2015)The number of removals under Dublin Convention III regulation for 2010-2015 as indicated by our records are shown in the table below.Destination of Return20142015Austria2035Belgium3535Bulgaria*15Croatia5*Cyprus**Czech Republic**Denmark*10Estonia00Finland**France2040Germany2045Greece00Hungary1030Ireland4040Italy80150Latvia00Lithuania**Luxembourg00Malta5*Netherlands1015Norway1010Poland**Portugal0*Romania**Slovakia*5Slovenia*0Spain55Sweden1015Switzerland155Totals 285 455NOTE “*” represents figures below 3.

HM Treasury

Diesel Fuel: Tax Evasion

Lord Browne of Belmont: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) arrests, and (2) convictions, for diesel laundering there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) does not break down statistics for oils convictions to separate out those arising from diesel laundering. Total arrests and convictions for oils offences in Northern Ireland for the last complete three years for which figures are available were as follows:  2012-132013-142014-15Arrests8013Convictions995 The figures for arrests and convictions in any particular year do not correspond as investigations and prosecutions do not always reach conclusion in the year that they commence.

Cabinet Office

Charities: Lobbying

Baroness Barker: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, prior to the change of terms and conditionsattached to all grant agreement letters issued by public-sector grant providers to recipients of grant funding being announced by the Cabinet Office on 6 February,due diligence was undertaken to ensure that that policy complies with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Lord Bridges of Headley: Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires governments to protect public health policy from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. The grant funding clause announced on 6 February 2016 helps protect the taxpayer by ensuring that grants are only used for the purposes for which they are intended. It is therefore entirely consistent with the aforementioned Article.

By-elections

Lord Browne of Belmont: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the average cost to the public purse of a parliamentary by-election since 2010.

Lord Bridges of Headley: The average (mean) cost to the public purse of a Parliamentary by-election since 2010 is £228,964. This comprises two main elements: the costs incurred by Returning Officers in running the poll; and the cost of delivering election mailings produced by candidates. The costs of running the three most recent by-elections, for which the Returning Officer’s expenses have not yet been settled, have not been factored into this average figure.

Electoral Fraud Review

Lord Rennard: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish details of the recommendations for potential changes to electoral legislation by Sir Eric Pickles MP.

Lord Bridges of Headley: Sir Eric Pickles will make his recommendations as soon as he is able. 66 written submissions are under consideration, as well as evidence provided in meetings with specific people and at a seminar of academics, stakeholder organisations and political parties.

Lobbying: Registration

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are any plans to expand the scope of the Register of Consultant Lobbyists to include in-house lobbyists.

Lord Bridges of Headley: The Register complements the existing government transparency regime whereby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries proactively publish quarterly details of their meetings with external organisations and individuals. While it is clear whose interests are being represented by other individuals and organisations when they meet with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, that was not the case for consultant lobbyists. That is why the Register was created. The Government has no plans to increase the scope of the register.

Lobbying: Registration

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action is being taken about consultant lobbyists not on the Register of Consultant Lobbyists.

Lord Bridges of Headley: Enforcement is a matter for the independent Registrar who has a duty to monitor compliance. The legislation provides a range of powers and sanctions for the Registrar to use in pursuance of this duty and in dealing with those who will not comply, including both civil and criminal measures.

Department of Health

Pharmacy: Tower Hamlets

Lord Mawson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned pharmacy cuts on patients and health services in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Lord Prior of Brampton: Community pharmacy is a vital part of the National Health Service and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review, the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020-21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population. The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public. We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, other pharmacy bodies and patient and public representatives on our proposals. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course. NHS England has a statutory duty to ensure the adequate provision of NHS pharmaceutical services across England and will ensure that duty continues to be met, including in respect of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Pharmacy

Lord Mawson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they or NHS England have made of the effectiveness of minor ailments services provided by community pharmacies in reducing pressure on GP practices and other parts of the NHS, and what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned pharmacy cuts on such services.

Lord Prior of Brampton: NHS England has taken account of the potential impact of a pharmacy minor ailments service on general practitioner services and other parts of the National Health Service. The findings of the Minor Ailment Study (MINA), conducted by the University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with NHS Grampian and the University of East Anglia, on behalf of Pharmacy Research UK in 2014, were considered. The study’s main conclusions were: - consultations for minor ailments continue to be a burden on high cost service providers but there needs to be consensus amongst healthcare professionals regarding what constitutes a minor ailment suitable for treatment in the community pharmacy setting;- the evidence considered suggests that community pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes are an effective and cost-effective strategy for managing patients;- health professionals and patients need to be confident in the ability of pharmacists and their staff to manage minor ailments; and- future initiatives to shift demand from high cost settings to community pharmacy should adopt an interdisciplinary approach to explore and address patient decision-making behaviour. In addition, evaluations of local minor ailments schemes have continued to inform decision-making about local commissioning of such schemes. Community pharmacy is a vital part of the NHS and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population. The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public. We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, other pharmacy bodies and patient and public representatives on our proposals. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course. Local commissioning and funding of services from community pharmacies, such as minor ailment services, will be unaffected by these proposals.

Sugar: Taxation

Lord Scriven: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 8 February (HL5407), whether they were consulted before NHS England announced that it would be introducing a sugar tax by 2020, and if so, what views they expressed.

Lord Prior of Brampton: There has been a wide-ranging public debate on tackling childhood obesity. We are interested to see the results of NHS England’s consultation on these proposals. The Childhood Obesity Strategy will be published in the summer.

Palliative Care

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the report A Review of Choice at the End of Life, published by the End of Life Coalition in February 2015.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The Department commissioned the independently-led Review of Choice in End of Life Care which provided advice to Ministers last year. The Review set out a vision for enabling greater choice and improving quality at the end of life for every dying person.We want to ensure that patients have greater choice about the care they receive at the end of their life and we are working with NHS England to see how this can best be achieved. We will set out our full response to the Choice Review shortly.

Medical Equipment: Procurement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Rapid Review Panel process can be extended to medical device technology, and if not, why not.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The Rapid Review Panel’s (RRP) primary remit is the evaluation of products for potential use in the National Health Service, to support claims of improved efficiency or efficacy of infection prevention and control interventions i.e. products that could reduce healthcare associated infections. The RRP, however, does not have the remit to regulate the safety of therapeutic products such as medical devices. Due to the requirements of safety assurance and regulation of therapeutic products, which are verified through Notified Bodies applying a Conformité Européenne (CE) marking, medical device technology falls within the remit of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA’s Innovation Office is set up to assist companies in the regulation of novel medical devices.

Medical Equipment: Procurement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of their review of the cost of wound dressings to the NHS, they will ensure that clinical expertise is a full component part of the process in order to ensure that the outcome is clinically effective as well as cost-effective.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The review of wound dressings by a dedicated working group resulted in the development of a number of clinical specifications for wound care products. In order to progress this work, from April 2016 a new NHS Clinical Evaluation Team will be put in place. The Clinical Evaluation Team will assess wound care products through a comprehensive evaluation process, which will have extensive engagement with NHS clinical staff. Included in the process will be tissue viability and infection control nurses, clinical procurement specialists, doctors, nurses and midwives along with medicine management practitioners from community trusts. The project’s remit is to review clinical products to identify those that enable high quality patient care whilst delivering the best outcomes for the NHS. The secondary consideration will be to identify products that could be procured more effectively through combined NHS buying power, to deliver greater overall value for money. The Clinical Evaluation Team is made up of practising clinicians.The project will therefore undertake assessments of the total costs and benefits of any recommendations to the overall NHS.

Medical Equipment: Procurement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to ensure that the NHS Supply Chain wound dressing generics project takes account of evidence comparing the cost of managing unhealed and healed wounds, and of the total cost of wound care in the NHS currently as compared with previous estimates.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The review of wound dressings by a dedicated working group resulted in the development of a number of clinical specifications for wound care products. In order to progress this work, from April 2016 a new NHS Clinical Evaluation Team will be put in place. The Clinical Evaluation Team will assess wound care products through a comprehensive evaluation process, which will have extensive engagement with NHS clinical staff. Included in the process will be tissue viability and infection control nurses, clinical procurement specialists, doctors, nurses and midwives along with medicine management practitioners from community trusts. The project’s remit is to review clinical products to identify those that enable high quality patient care whilst delivering the best outcomes for the NHS. The secondary consideration will be to identify products that could be procured more effectively through combined NHS buying power, to deliver greater overall value for money. The Clinical Evaluation Team is made up of practising clinicians.The project will therefore undertake assessments of the total costs and benefits of any recommendations to the overall NHS.

Medical Equipment: Procurement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 4 January (HL4800), whether they are aware of any limitations regarding the data contained in the Nursing Times report in December 2014, in particular its accuracy and relevance to the UK.

Lord Prior of Brampton: There were 856 responses to the Royal College of Nursing survey run by Nursing Times in December 2014. The respondents were keen to get involved in the procurement process and recognised opportunities to save money. The respondents to the survey included a broad spectrum of nursing staff, the breakdown of which was as follows: 35% Staff nurses, 31% Clinical nurse specialists; 16% ward sisters; 10% Senior nurse managers; 4% Healthcare Assistants; 1% Directors of Nursing; and 1% Student nurses. 74% of respondents to the survey saw opportunities to reduce duplication on wound care products.

Medical Equipment: Prices

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to consider restructuring the NHS Drug Tariff Part IX on wound dressings based on their clinical performance and intended use.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The scope of the Department’s clinical specifications project is to assess wound care products available via the NHS Supply Chain to secondary care organisations. There are no plans at this time to extend this scope to include wound care products listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff, which can be prescribed in primary care at National Health Service expense.

Medical Equipment

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 4 January (HL4800), what evidence they have that suggests that the complexity of choice in wound dressings for nurses and clinicians makes their clinical decisions more difficult and can lead to over-specification and variation in standards of care.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The NHS Catalogue contained over 600,000 products, many of which had been not used in excess of the last 12 months or were seemingly duplicate items. Given the sheer volume of products, this creates the complexity faced by clinicians and nurses when determining the appropriate products to use, which directly makes their decisions more difficult.By undertaking the planned clinical rationalisation of the products available via NHS Supply Chain, the Department aims to reduce this complexity, removing unnecessary products, ensuring that those available to the National Health Service are of an appropriate specification in order to maintain high standards of patient care.The clinical rationalisation work is being undertaken by practising clinicians taking into account feedback from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and other relevant programmes, such as ‘ Getting it Right First Time’.

NHS: Drugs

Baroness Masham of Ilton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the price of 100 grams of five per cent coal tar ointment on the NHS Drugs Tariff for England and Wales compares with (1) the price of that treatment from manufacturing pharmacies, and (2) the price of that treatment on the Scottish NHS Drugs Tariff; and whether they will provide those figures.

Lord Prior of Brampton: No comparison has been made between the NHS Drug Tariff reimbursement price for England and Wales and the price of coal tar preparations produced by National Health Service hospital manufacturers. Any comparison would need to be treated with caution as some hospitals’ prices will not include the same overhead costs as commercial suppliers, nor might they have the infrastructure needed to supply to any pharmacy or indeed all pharmacies. A comparison of the reimbursement prices of specials listed on the Scottish Drug Tariff with those on the English Drug Tariff in Autumn 2015 showed there were 40 products listed on both Tariffs that were the same or similar. Out of these, 50% were more expensive on the Scottish Drug Tariff in comparison with the English Drug Tariff. The products are not necessarily exactly the same and the reimbursement arrangements in Scotland operate in different ways to those in England.